Framing
climate
change
A Cross-Cultural Examination of Government
Environmental Agencies’ Websites in Norway,
China, Costa Rica and the United States
Jill Capotosto
• Major global issue
• Solution: communication
• Government agencies can affect actions through
communication
Climate change
• Framing—promotes particular definition, interpretation,
evaluation
• Environmental framing
• Marketing approach
• Values-based approach
Environmental framing
•
•
•
•
Frames based on values
Egoistic
Social-altruistic
Biospheric
Environmental values
• Collectivism vs. individualism
• Masculinity vs. femininity
Cultural context
• “The reasons for adopting particular behavioral changes have
very important implications for the energy and persistence
with which these behaviors are pursued.” (Tom Crompton)
• “Communication both reveals properties of producers and
may have cognitive consequences for receivers.”
(Krippendorff, 1989)
• Focus of study—Frames used by government EPAs to
communicate on environmental issues across countries with
different:
• Environmental performance
• Cultural values
• Goal: shed light on government communication that
• Has been successful in generating public acceptance of
progressive environmental agendas
• Reflects environmentally progressive cultures
Purpose of study
1. How does the country’s government environmental
agency website frame climate change generally?
2. How does the country’s government environmental
agency website frame the causes of climate change?
3. How does the country’s government environmental
agency website frame the country’s response to climate
change?
4. What are the dominant environmental values conveyed
by the country’s government environmental agency
website?
Research questions
• Yale EPI
• Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
• English-language site
Country
Collectivism (0) vs.
individualism (100)
Femininity (0) vs.
masculinity (100)
EPI rank (out of
132)
Costa Rica
15
21
5
Norway
69
8
3
United States 91
62
49
China
66
66
20
Case studies
• Mixed-methods content analysis of websites
• Costa Rica = 25, Norway = 13, US = 76, China = 16
• 10% double coded
• Qualitative
• Read all climate change pages, emergent coding
• Quantitative
• Coding rubric based on qualitative themes
• Unit of analysis = heading/subheading/bullet/sentence
Method
• Costa Rica
• United States
• National pride
• International opportunity
• Basic understanding
• Norway
• National wellbeing
• Scientific consensus
• Grave situation
• China
• Scientific detachment
• Long-term orientation
• Interconnection
• Unique presentation
• International model of
success
Country
Developed
Developing
Costa Rica
0.7
5.0
Norway
18.5
2.2
United States
15.6
0.9
China
0.2
3.0
Dominant frames
• Costa Rica
• United States
• Unequivocally
anthropogenic
• National accountability
• Norway
• Individual accountability
• Limited national
responsibility
• China
• Societal accountability
• Complex and nuanced
• Graduated responsibility
• Unquestioned
• Bad guys and victims
• Situational accountability
Country
Developed
Developing
Home
Costa Rica
0.37
0.55
0.55
Norway
5.21
3.16
6.79
United States
1.42
0.48
1.78
China
2.08
0.23
0.69
Causes
• Costa Rica
• United States
• International response vital
• Multi-level responsibility
• Individual action
emphasized
• Laissez-faire
• US-centric
• Norway
• National and global
responsibility
• Systemic changes
• Developing countries as
priority
• China
• Public-private partnerships
• Helpless victim
• Decentralized responsibility
Country
Individual
Government
International
Costa Rica
4.4
26.4
8.7
Norway
0.0
3.1
4.0
United States
4.0
14.0
0.2
China
1.4
8.5
17.8
Responses
• Costa Rica
• United States
• Egoistic and economic
• Nationally altruistic
• Peripherally biospheric
• Norway
• Social altruism
• Biospheric
• Economics connected to
environment
Country
Values
• Egoistic internationally
• Nature as natural resource
• Market-based, egoistic
individually
• China
• Social altruism
• Market-based approach for
values-based reasons
Costa Rica
Egoistic
7.20
Biospheric Social-altruistic
1.48
3.21
Norway
9.48
16.43
5.53
7.33
3.79
6.01
3.00
United States 11.79
9.01
China
•
•
•
•
Costa Rica: basic background
Norway: no background
US: most detailed, most studies cited
China: little explanation, least reader-friendly
Presentation of science
Conclusions
• Blame
•
•
•
•
Costa Rica: national
Norway: national
US: individual, little national/developed country
China: developed
• Response
•
•
•
•
Costa Rica: individual, company/community, international
Norway: international
US: individual, voluntary or common sense national
China: national, international
Level of emphasis
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
Costa Rica: egoistic, biospheric
Norway: social-altruistic, biospheric
US: egoistic
China: social-altruistic
Values
Conclusions
• Costa Rica: biospheric and international cooperation, but
individual responses
• Norway: biospheric and international cooperation, no
individual responses
• US: individual action
• China: international cooperation, praise of government,
individual action for societal benefit
Reflection of culture
Conclusions
• Connection between feminine culture and biospheric
values, international cooperation
• Frame of international responsibility and accountability
may be reflective of or lead to better environmental
performance
• Limitations
• Future study
Conclusions